About Me

Saturday, August 31, 2013

More than a week ago, August 21, was the 30th death anniversary of former Sen. Ninoy Aquino, husband of former President Cory Aquino and father of current President Noynoy Aquino. He was murdered when he got off the plane upon his arrival in Manila from the US. The Marcos government version then was that a hired killer, Rolando Galman, slipped out of nowhere past a thick phalanx of airport policemen and soldiers armed to the teeth, and shot Ninoy. That story is a hoax, of course.

Anyway, Filipino humor made fun of that Marcos government story. Among such humor is converting portions of the old San Miguel Beer (SMB) pale pilsen bottle's labels into a political comedy story. Here is one, invented by some friends way back in the mid-80s:

Thursday, August 29, 2013

After the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF0 has
been abolished by the President last Friday, August 13, 2013, there is an
unprogrammed amount of P25.4 billion in the proposed 2014 budget. If explicit
pork barrel is indeed abolished, the budget should be lower by that amount. But
this is not the case.

According to DBM Secretary Butch Abad, legislators can
introduce their priority projects, subject to certain guidelines as mentioned
by the President last Friday, into the budget. Meaning those projects will be
inserted into agency budgets and the size of the proposed budget has remained
the same, not declined. This practice is often called as “Congressional
Insertion.”

The budget submitted by DBM to Congress after the
President’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) is a compilation of financial
requests from four groups: (a) provincial and regional offices of an agency
like DA, DILG, DTI, etc., (b) Central
offices of those agencies and Departments, (c) local government units (LGUs), and
(d) NGOs, people’s organizations via “participative budget consultations"
like the recent Bottom up Budgeting (BuB) scheme.

Once the budget is discussed and heard in Congress, legislators can disapprove some
proposals and projects, say projects coming from Mayors, Governors and NGOs who are not friendly or non-ally of
the legislators. Then they can increase the budget of certain projects which
can benefit their friends and allies, like in municipalities and cities that
supported them in the last election. It is the prerogative of the legislators
to do this because they are empowered by the Constitution to scrutinize and
pass a budget law every year.

This Congressional Insertion is one form of soft or
implicit pork barrel. Thus, pork barrel can never be truly be abolished,
without expecting the national government to shrink in size and budget. Only a
truly independent and activist legislature can control and disallow wasteful or
excessive spending by the Executive branch.

---------

The citizens’ “Million March” in Luneta on August 26 is
unique because it is largely spontaneous. While Edsa 1 revolution in 1986 was
also spontaneous, big politicians and political groups later set the tone and
direction of the protest movement. Besides, it was directed against a
particular leader, the former President Marcos.

The “Million March” is different. It is not directed
against a particular leader, say President Noynoy Aquino, but against
corruption in general and corrupt officials in government, especially among the
legislators implicated in the Napoles pork scandal. And there are no grand
speakers with grand speeches and promises, no plackards and streamers, no
dominant political color or political group organizing it.

The spontaneity
and lack of central organizers with central planning thinking makes the
“Million March” exciting and unpredictable. The activist public have become wary
of the usual protest leaders and groups. They suspect that these groups are no
different from the politicians that they criticize. So the public is now opting
and experimenting the politics of spontaneity.

Big politicians, big political groups and big government
do not like this kind of arrangement. They are used to dealing with centralized
action so they can focus their politics of compromises, and bribery if
necessary, on the leaders of those movements.

Famous Austrian economist and political philosopher, Friedrich
Hayek, extolled the value of spontaneity in his book, The Constitution of Liberty (published 1962). He wrote,

Liberty is
essential in order to leave room for the unforeseeable and unpredictable.
Because every individual knows so little that we trust the independent and
competitive efforts of many to induce the emergence of what we shall want when
we see it….

Freedom means the
renunciation of direct control of individual efforts that a free society can
make use of so much more knowledge than the mind of the wisest ruler could
comprehend… Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects
will be beneficial is not freedom. Freedom means that many things will be done
which we do not like. Our faith in freedom rests on the belief that it will, on
balance, release more forces for the good than for the bad.

Hayek was referring to the evil of central planning in
running societies and governments. Leave the individuals to run their own
lives, their own households and communities, so long as the government is there
to implement the rule of law – few, general laws and prohibitions that apply to
all, no one is exempted and no one can grant an exemption. Like the laws
against murder, stealing, abduction, land grabbing, extortion, destruction of properties.

The politics of central planning as practiced by many
governments around the world, armed with huge annual budget as authorized by
their legislators and the legislators getting their own pork in exchange for
passing such budget laws, works against individual freedom and facilitates
corruption. Corruption not only in wasteful or stolen spending, but corruption
of values of the people, that they can relegate certain personal and parental
responsibility in running their own households, and pass them as government
responsibility.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Legislators’ pork barrel fund was called Countrywide
Development Fund (CDF) in the 90s, later called Priority Development Assistance
Fund (PDAF). President Noynoy Aquino has abolished the PDAF on Friday, August
23, 2013. The legislators’ pork was not abolished, it was simply reformed and
it has no name yet.

Filipino humor comes in, as usual. The first eight below,
I got from facebook, posted by a friend. The next 10 were my inventions.

Suggested new terms for the pork barrel or Congressional
insertion as PDAF has been abolished already:

MANILA - From Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) to
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and now a reformed pork that has
yet to be named. The legislators' pork barrel is not truly abolished but only
reformed.

The pork barrel system can truly be eliminated, but that
would mean a significant shrinking of the Executive branch -- in budget,
subsidies, size of the bureaucracy and regulatory powers. Because an activist
and really independent legislature will disallow unnecessary spending. Are the
people ready for this scenario?

The President announced last Friday that he is abolishing
PDAF. A reformed budget for legislators’ special fund will be set up subject to
the following guidelines:

1. Projects to
be funded to come from a specific menu of qualified projects;

4. Funds cannot
be disbursed to NGOs and certain GOCCs, such as ZREC and NABCOR, both of which,
along with others, will be abolished;

5. Funds must be
limited to the district or sector of the legislator who sponsored it;

6. All items
will be subject to open and competitive bidding, with all bid notices and
awards posted on the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System
(PhilGEPS); and

7. For
transparency, each will be disclosed in the DBM and related agency websites, as
well as the National Data Portal of the government.

This means legislators’ pork barrel system will continue
but (a) limited to hard projects like new roads, (b) coursed through line
departments, and (c) pass through competitive bidding.

Pork barrel a compromise

Legislators’ pork barrel is a compromise allowed by the
President so the former would support certain spending and revenue-raising
measures. Aside from the explicit pork barrel -- which is a separate item in
the National Expenditure Program (NEP) -- there is also an implicit pork in the
form of “budgetary insertion” by legislators. They can cut the proposed budget
of certain agencies they do not like, then increase the budget of another
agency that is friendly to them, with the implicit arrangement that the
legislators, or even some Congressional staff, will get a portion or the entire
amount of such hike in the agency's budget.

The national budget hit P1 trillion six years ago, while
the P2 trillion is upon us this year. The P3 trillion budget will be reached in
2016 or 2017. The public debt stock is rising by around P400 billion a year.
Interest payment is rising to P313 billion in 2012, P333 billion this year and
P352 billion next year.

This expansion of public spending, borrowing and debt
payment -- as well as new or higher taxes -- was made possible because the
legislators had allowed it, because they have a "share" of that huge
spending, through pork barrel and Congressional insertion. If we disallow the
legislators their “share” or claim to the national budget, they will become
activist and more independent minded, and they will disallow such uncontrolled
expansion in spending, borrowing and taxation by the Executive branch.

Breeding grounds for cronyism, patronage

Many government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs)
and government financial institutions (GFIs) are breeding grounds for cronyism
and political patronage. Some big supporters and financiers in previous
elections who cannot be given Cabinet positions are appointed as president or
board directors in GOCCs and GFIs. For instance, the National Food Authority
(NFA) is among the perennially losing GOCCs and deficit generators.

If these GOCCs are to be scrutinized by an activist and
really independent Congress, most likely they will be stripped of their funds
and privatized, or at least be significantly shrunk as they contribute more to
losses and hence, more public borrowings or more taxes. To avoid this,
legislators are given their own share of pork so they will allow continued
waste and inefficiency in the Executive branch.

The Bottom up Budgetting (BuB) system or related schemes
have allowed NGOs, people's organizations and civil society organizations
(CSOs) to "insert" their own favorite projects, their own “pork"
in the budget. It is P8 billion plus this year and P20 billion next year.
LGUs too have their own projects inserted in the budget, on top of their IRA
and locally-funded projects.

If legislators are to be true to their mandate to
scrutinize and disapprove certain huge budgetary requests and endless
subsidies, the national budget will shrink. But many people who clamor for
"pork abolition" do not want that either. They want their own subsidies
and pork retained or expanded while stripping legislators of their share in the
loot.

"Freedom from debt" requires "freedom
from borrowing"

Most people who demand a "spend-spend-spend"
policy are not aware that previous overspending has resulted in over-borrowing,
so the interest payment is a big penalty on the public. To get a P10 billion
increase over the previous year's budget for the favorite department, people
may jump with joy. But to pay P350 billion in interest on debt does not bother
them.

We will never have "freedom from debt" unless
we adopt the "freedom from borrowing" mentality. Public education
among other social sectors are among the most inefficient and wasteful. When
you provide books and education for the poor -- from elementary to college and
even graduate studies -- the result should be productive people able to help
themselves out of poverty. Only one generation of useful and effective spending
and poverty should have been controlled many decades ago. But this never
happened. The inefficient, wasteful and even corruption-laden service delivery
was made possible, was never questioned or controlled by the Legislative branch
because lawmakers benefited from such wasteful public spending.

A corrupt and wasteful legislature can tolerate a corrupt
and wasteful Executive branch. And many people -- ordinary citizens,
businessmen, consultants, academics, etc -- have huge supply or consulting
contracts with, or foreign aid-assisted projects implemented by the Executive
branch.

Alas, there is an
even greater scam that is being perpetrated on the Filipino people, beside
which, in terms of orders of magnitude, the pork barrel pales in
comparison. A scam that allows the rich to get richer, and the poor to
get screwed coming and going. A scam that affects not just the present
generation, but also generations to come….

What humongous scam
is this? That foisted by the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or Republic
Act 7942.

Why is it a
scam? Because the Filipino people, as owners of the minerals, receive,
under RA 7942, only TWO Percent of the value of the mined ore, as their share
of the proceeds from the mining development enterprise. Period. And
for so-called FTAAs (financial and technical assistance agreements), our share
would consist of 50 percent of the net income of the operation after taxes—from
which would be deducted all taxes paid to the government. Which
effectively reduces that 50 percent to, as former Environment Secretary
Angel Reyes commented, “zero or nil,” and which Supreme Court Justice Antonio
Carpio termed a “sham.”

Let us see official data from the MGB-DENR to check the
validity of some points by my former teacher in UPSE in the mid-80s.

One, there are
many taxes and fees imposed by the national government other than the excise
tax: corporate income tax, VAT, royalties, documentary stamp tax, capital gains
tax, withholding tax on dividends, withholding tax on interest payment, customs
tax on imported vehicles, vehicle registration tax, MGB fee, other national
taxes and fees.

Plus taxes and fees by local government units (LGUs):
business tax, real property tax, community tax, occupation fee, extraction fee,
wharfage fee, other taxes and fees. In 2011, government, national and local,
collected P22.23 billion.

Two, small
scale mining (SSM) do not pay national taxes, only small local fees, despite
producing some P43 billion in 2010 and P34 billion in 2011. Just how small is
tax payment by SSM to LGUs? Take the case of two of the most mineral-rich
provinces in the country.

S. Cotabato is a mineral rich province. Tampakan
copper-gold mining project is supposed to be located there but the provincial
government stopped it as it will not allow open-pit mining. Yet the provincial government
collected only P6.6 M in 2010 and P9.7 M in 2011 from SSM.

Benguet’s provincial collection was even smaller, only
P8,100 in 2009 and P22,100 in 2010. From the same AFRIM report, it says that of
the 69 SSM operators in 2010, only 8 were registered and only 5 have payment
records.

Three, with
such minuscule tax payment to LGUs and zero tax payment to the national
government, it is safe to assume that up to 99 percent of the P22.23 billion collection
in 2011, or P22 billion, were paid by large-scale metallic mining (LSMM) and
non-metallic mining (NMM) firms.

We can construct this computation from the above numbers.

Table 3. Taxes and
Fees Paid by LSMM and NMM, 2010 and 2011, in P Billion

At 39.4 percent combined payment by LSMM and NMM in 2011,
and seeing their proportional payment in 2010, it is safe to assume that LSMM
paid about 50 percent of their net revenues to the government.

Four, on top
of those taxes and fees paid, LSMM are also required by RA 7942, Chapter X, and
DENR Administrative Order (DAO) 2010-21 (IRR of RA 7942) requires LSMM to have
Social Development and Management Program (SDMP) for the communities where they
are operating. In 2010 alone, this was more than half billion pesos from
members of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP) alone.

Since SDMP (school, hospital, livelihood trainings,
tractors, etc.) is not counted as part of operating expenses, then it can be
considered as additional tax and fee that goes direct to the people in the communities,
not to the BIR and LGUs.

Prof. Monsod was silent on SSM in her article, she only
lambasted LSMM. She further wrote,

About 10 or so
years ago, the value placed on the metallic minerals in the country was
something like $900 billion. Assuming an exchange rate of P40=$1, we’re
talking P36 trillion. Subtracting development and production costs
assumed to be 60 percent of that value, the gross profits before tax would be
P14.4 trillion.

Using the Malampaya
formula, the share of the government/Filipino people would come out to P8.64
trillion. Using the 2-percent formula of the Philippine Mining Act, our
share is P720 billion—or eight hundredths of one percent (0.08 percent) of what
we would have gotten using Malampaya. In effect, if all those mineral resources
had been extracted, under RA 7942, the loss to the Filipino people would be
P7.92 trillion. And this does not even take into consideration the cost of the
adverse environmental effects of mining.

The above computation by my former teacher is wrong, here
is why.

One, based on
taxes and fees paid by LSMM in 2010 (43 percent) and 2011 (about 50 percent),
the tax multiplier to be used should be around 46 percent, not two percent. A comparison of Prof. Monsod’s numbers vs more
realistic numbers can be constructed.

Two, even if
an amendment to RA 7942 in mining taxation will be enacted and move from excise
tax of two percent ++ existing taxes and fees to a Malampaya gas revenue
sharing (government 60%, private/Shell 40%), the potential difference in
revenue collection will only be around P2.02 trillion and not P8.35 or P7.92
trillion).

And if SDMP spending is included, the difference will
narrow down to perhaps only P1.8 trillion.

Three,
“adverse environmental effects of mining” applies mainly to practices by SSM
(see Mt. Diwalwal for instance) and not by LSMM. But again, Prof. Monsod was
silent about SSM in her article.

In short, Prof. Monsod’s paper is more about revenue
exaggeration and alarmism and not based on realistic numbers based on existing
revenue policies of the government, both national and local.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

The other day, a friend way back from UP Diliman undergrad
in the 80s, JB Baylon, posted this in his facebook wall and tagged me, below. I am attaching some posters circulating in facebook for the Citizens' indignation rally on Monday, August 26.

PENNY-WISE, POUND
FOOLISH??? THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE

…I think it is important to highlight the fact that the PORK we wish to save
from the clutches of the porkish is only 1% of our total national budget. This
is not to say that it is not worth "saving" even just 1% from ending
up in pockets and not in real projects. But it highlights that there is a
bigger issue here which should show us to the ultimate purpose of our
"agitation". You see we could be focused on the 1% and all het up
about it -- but what about the 99%? Who's watching that?

In the Western world they have this saying, "Penny wise, pound
foolish".

You see, in my
view, the objective should NOT be to remove pork, to do away with it, because
that will NOT solve the fundamental problem or address the fundamental
weakness. The objective should be to INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN AS MUCH OF WHAT
GOVERNMENT DOES as is possible -- which means we focus as much on the 99% as we
are now so agitated over the 1%!!!!

That's where my argument about the need for the FOI bill comes in.

This is why I keep saying, we cannot fall back on our usual habit of knee jerk
reactions to issues. We will end up focusing on the 1% and leaving unattended
the 99%. Penny wise, pound foolish.

The real issue, folks, is TRANSPARENCY.

… Now, will it take too long to populate the database? of course not. Everytime
an NGO CSO or whatever entity applies for a pork grant it should enter its info
into the website -- so long before the COA can finish an audit most of the info
should be there, for the public to see and the media to verify! Early on we
will know if Senator Pork is lining his pockets or Congressman Swine is filling
his sty. And then it is up to us to act.

To repeat: I am worried that our focus on pork and its abolition misses the
bigger issue: TRANSPARENCY. Eliminate the pork but do not institute
transparency and you have a problem with the 99% of the budget. Insist on the institution
of TRANSPARENCY -- easier to do in this day and age of Information Technology
-- and you strengthen the power of the citizenry -- the Bosses -- over any
public servant who may wish to pull a fast one. That would still happen, for
sure -- but at a scale far less than the one we are discovering as we sift
through the sty.

I thanked JB for his ideas and commented that more than
transparency, government size -- the bureaucracy, regulation and prohibition
powers, the budget, should shrink, or at least should stop expanding fast.

I support Malou Tiquia's proposal that the 2013 budget (P2 trillion) be
re-enacted, throw away the 2014 proposed budget (nearly P2.3 trillion). For
those in automatic appropriation like IRA, a supplemental budget can be passed.
Interest payment this year is P333 billion, will rise to P352 billion next
year. Government just keeps the spend-spend-spend, borrow-tax-borrow policy
irresponsibly, spanning all administrations from Marcos up to the present.

A mutual friend, Steve Cutler, replied that “the phrase "moderate your greed"
comes to mind for citizens and residents, too. For the government to shrink we
as the people must stop asking for so much from the government. It seems like
every time something happens, we turn to the government and demand action. We
fall on hard times, and we want the government to give us a helping hand. Most
often, that is cash, but other times it is some kind of service. Turning more
to our own resources, and paying for services we want on an as needed basis,
which is the model for a toll road, seems to be what you're suggesting.”

Yes, Steve is correct. Many people asking for the
abolition of pork barrel are unaware that they are pointing some fingers on
themselves. You want more condoms for the poor? Buy some of it and give to the
poor, do not ask for more budget (and more taxes and fees to finance it) even
for simple and ordinary procurement. Government should focus, even expand, on
its 3 core functions:

The main function of government, its raison d’etre, is to protect the citizens’
right to life (against aggressors), right to private property (against thieves
and saboteurs) and right to liberty and freedom of expression (against
bullies). All other government functions are either secondary or unnecessary.
This is where shrinkage of government bureaucracies and spending should occur.
Where there is less money to steal, less stealing will happen.

Monday, August 19, 2013

After posting in my facebook status the PhilStar article
re DOH Sec. Ona’s proposal that PhilHealth will soon cover stem cell treatment
(SCT), several physician friends commented, below. The images I got from the web, I just added them here.

(1) From Doc Ethel:

It infuriates me Nonoy. Patients
should not be made to undergo treatment that has not been proven to be safe and
effective. And to pay for that is nothing less than unethical, bordering on
malpractice. –

(2) From Doc Tony:

Soon every doctor will buy ADI stem machine with rebates and referral system
will be in place creating a huge pyramid scam - medical tourism type concept.
Why would past PMA leaders band together and risk their image ( ???$? ) and
engage the doh secretary. This is to lend credibility to the PSSCM grand plan.
FDA has been used too.

Philhealth will be used here. After August 31 deadline, SCT will go big time.
With skin regeneration given FDA approval based on FDA new set of guidelines,
our kasam Bahay s have plans of having SCT ahead of us.

Philhealth money will be squandered for SCT rather than for building hospitals
in the country side , salaries of healthcare professionals, research, PGH
renovation, improvement of Fabella hospital, Jose Reyes Hosp, renovation of the
dilapidated FDA office in Alabang the only eye sore in posh Alabang area. The
stem cell centers in manila will be magnet for more tourists - it's fun in the
Philippines. Great plan.

(3) From Doc Jed:

Noy, it seems that the article merely shows that the
Secretary is friendly to local stem cell therapy practitioners and that
specific supplier of stem cell activator equipment.

Having stem cell therapy covered by Philhealth cannot be
done unless it is of proven efficacy for treatment. Our present coverage at
thus time is even focused on therapeutic and not on preventive healthcare.

(4) From Doc Donn:

Sec Ona did not say na standard of care ang stem cell. he
said that sct is innovative therapy. kaya ung about philhealth, it will happen
decades from now when sct is already accepted as standard of care. Until that
happens, philhealth will not cover it. the sct issue is being muddled by bogus
claims but we must also recognize that there are scts that show promise for
certain indications. Still, scts are innovative therapies rather than standard
of care.

(5) From Doc Tony:

Donm. I have respect for sec Ike. But kindly advise him
to extricate from PSSCM. He's being used and people will never stop speculating
about the motive. I am getting frustrated seeing sin tax gains for Philhealth
will go to unproven treatment. I have gone around the country and I have been
receiving a lot gory stories about stem cell practice. We don't want this to
happen to our healthcare.

(6) From Doc Jed:

Nonoy, I
think the preventive aspects would better be addressed by other agencies of the
national and local governments. PHILHEALTH being an insurance organization
merely provides a form of health care financing. It bases it's health related
expenses on statistics and claims management experiences.

I agree that scientific collaborative effort is necessary
and such is undertaken in the private sector. Sadly, more often than not, there
are always, though subtle, commercial undertones. Not that the commerce aspect
is evil in itself, but to cite a quote, "temper their greed".

(7) From Doc Meo:

This is what happens when a clinician with limited administrative and executive
experience becomes DOH secretary. It seems to me that Dr. Ona is still having a
hard time dissociating himself from his practice. I fully understand his
excitement over the progress in stem cell research. I myself am also very
enthusiastic about its possibilities. However, Sec. Ona should refrain from
making irresponsible statements. He must always keep in mind that he represents
a national office. As such, he must be clear if a statement is his personal
opinion or an official stand. For example, in the statement, "“Our dream
is that when this type of therapy already has a standard of care, its cost will
definitely go down. By then, hopefully, (PhilHealth) can offer it already” who
exactly was he referring to with the pronoun "OUR"?

I was following the stem cell treatment (SCT) controversy in the Philippines recently. The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) and the Philippine Society of Stem Cell Medicine (PSSCM), both headed by Dr. Leo Olarte, vs the 21 other
specialized medical societies. The former group says stem cell treatment can cure many
diseases, the latter camp says it is not true, that stem cell is proven only
for bone marrow transplant and blood-related cancer, I think, and that stem cell in other
diseases are still under clinical trials.

But one problem came up when DOH Secretary Enrique Ona has generally sided with the PMA-PSSCM camp and even castigated the 21 medical societies for
questioning the latter. Sec. Ona is an Honorary Chairman of PSSCM.

Today, I posted this news story from the Philppine Star and posted in the MeTA Philippines email loop. The images I got from the web, I just added them here.

MANILA, Philippines
- Ordinary people may eventually have the chance to undergo expensive stem cell
therapy.

Health Secretary
Enrique Ona said the Department of Heath (DOH) is looking at the possibility of
including stem cell therapy in the benefit packages of the Philippine Health
Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) if the medical sector accepted it as a standard
care.

“Our dream is that
when this type of therapy already has a standard of care, its cost will
definitely go down. By then, hopefully, (PhilHealth) can offer it already,” Ona
said.

Stem cell treatment soon to be covered by PhilHealth? Even if it's still under clinical trials for many
diseases? And such treatment is not cheap, many practitioners there charging 6
digits, even 7 digits for their rich patients.

If this will push through, ubusan ng pera yan. What's
next, PhilHealth will raise the annual premium of members because funds are
running out fast?

If we want UHC, government, the DOH and LGUs in
particular, should focus on primary healthcare, in fighting communicable and
infectious diseases, and childhood diseases. If people want stem cell treatment
and risk their lives and money for the promise of miracle, let them spend their
own money, why drag along pooled fund, especially that people are forced,
coerced and arm-twisted to contribute to that fund by law?

A lot of distortions in healthcare and other social issues are often initiated
by the government itself.

I just hope that such PhilHealth plan will be junked. Or
they want another public clamor against it, ala anti-pork barrel robbery
movement?

----------

Three members of the Council commented:

(a) From Leonie Ocampo of PPhA:

How sad of our DOH to be supporting an initiative and/or
treatment not proven by clinical trails yet, more so planning to even put this
into the Philhealth benefit package.

Philippines with its limited resources must FOCUS in the
MUST DOs in health care delivery. A lot of problems from procurement, handling
and storage, distribution, prescribing, dispensing, administration and
monitoring of patients are still into a lot of problems and need government
attention to manage and control with the right structure and processes; then
here is the department tasks to put all of these in place going to something
not proven yet . . wow, I could imagine how much of the people's money will be
wasted again.

Yes, I agree with you Noy, FOCUS should also be given
first and foremost on primary health care . . . right structure, right
processes, right people and the right resources identified and provided. Let's
stop talk, talk and talk but let us start to act in the right direction, sa
tuwid na daan. You know what I mean.

(b) From Doc K

Dear all, Doh did not say at anytime that phic will cover
stem cell. Sec Ona has not sided with any groups. Pls do not believe
all newspaper reports. Ask why these misleading news are surfacing over the last
month.

(c) From Doc Delen:

Dear Nonoy,

Very well said!!! I totally agree with you!
Really, the priorities of this government is something that we should
question. They are not looking at the needs of the vast majority of the
Filipino which can be easily addressed if we put our money on public health and
primary health services. Primary health care is an approach that is not
being espoused by the DOH when in fact PHC continues to be the backbone of good
health strategies. Secretary Ona, whose experience is very hospital
based, prioritizes tertiary care and hospital centered care which is more
expensive. Certainly, if the government's budget for health is directly
given to primary care services, improving the local health center facilities
and making health care, including medicines, more available and accessible,
then we do not have to have Philhealth that still screens what can be supported
or not. People will now patronize the health centers and exercise their
right to health. This will improve their health seeking behavior and
know that they can avail of services immediately. They need not
wait for their condition to worsen, which is what is currently happening, necessitating
a tertiary care consult. Then, eventually, we can have more healthy
people who can now be more productive and contribute more to the economy of the
country (but of course there should also be concomitant changes in the economic
and political spheres as in providing decent and justly paid jobs, humane
housing conditions, good nutrition, good education, etc).

It is appalling that Secretary Ona can think of stem cell
therapy first to be included in a Philhealth package before he thinks of
improving our basic health care services. Stem cell therapy is very new
and still under study and we should not deceive the people and worse, make
money from them as indeed this is a very expensive intervention. And to
use our people's money for this is truly something we should not allow!